#some of those people are beyond any kind of redemption

[eri-pl]

Lack of redemption arcs in the Legendarium

Surprisingly, I can't find many, if any at all.

I mean real redemption arcs ie character is evil / has done done serious evil at the start and they put actual work and things happen and at the end they're less evil and do less evil (or none at all).

(And ideally, they don't die at the completion of the arc but separately later or not at all.)

I don't mean things like "did evil things out of trauma it ignorance" (therapy or education is a different thing from redemption. All are great, but different people need different of those.) or "did one very minor thing and is sorry" (it's not an arc, it's something smaller). I mean the real deal.

There are implied redemption arcs (elves in Mandos in general), something that feels like a referenced arc but never described (Osse), a heavy edited story that at one point kind of feels like a redemption arc (Galadriel), failed attempts (all the baddies especially Smeagol and Mairon)...

I don't remember book Boromir well, maybe he... But he's not evil, just a little weak. He does very little wrong. He's more serious than makes bad choices.

Elu Thingol sort of has an arc on "don't be racist against humans" but then dies partially at being racist against dwarves so I'm not sure that counts either.

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, whose greatest crime is being a mean relative. I guess this counts?

Even in Numenor, nobody gets it.

I know it's a modern trend to give everyone redemption arcs, but I would expect, with all the talk about mercy and pity, to see some actual results, more results than "yay, we got the evil defeated because we were good to the bad guy". With all due respect. That's a big result too. But anyway.

I suppose Tolkien just didn't vibe with bad people. He survived the war and I guess it needed more... How to call it? More thinking on terms of "if you cross this line, you're lost". I know theoretically he didn't see it like this. But in practice, you may only go so far (and it's not far) until you're beyond repair.

I don't like it. It's not how the world works. I went further.

Also, another thing that irks me tremendously, but it's an observable rule in all Legendarium:

When your aesthetic is dark or wrong, you are beyond salvation.

You like industry? Bye. You don't like light? Bye! You look ugly (not plain, just ugly)? There might be a few exceptions of Elves who went through Angband, but generally: bye. You don't laugh and feel uneasy in company? Out to the void with you, go join Morgoth. You are depressed and not in a nice (Frodo) way, but in a cold way that makes you feel cynical? Bye. You live at the East and like sun more than noon? You're probably evil too.

I may be oversimplifying a bit, but not by much. It is a thing.

That's not how things work!!!

Seriously. I was there. I was all those things. I am dinner if then still and don't consider it a problem.

I hate this in the books. I love Tolkien's work and what he tried to do, but I feel like I'm some places he failed at it dramatically and the general feel it's not faithful to his intentions.

I hope this rambling is understandable enough, I'm bad at English, especially when ranting.

Luckily, there are fanfics

[boylikeanangel]

I'm absolutely bonkers over the commentary that ofmd s2 is giving us on morality and redemption actually.

specifically what ed's conversation with hornigold after realising he's in purgatory says for the wider messaging this show has on the idea of retribution. because when he asks "who decides whether I live or die? you?" and hornigold says "no (...) this is on you" it kind of really does call into question a lot of big ideas about the stance this show is taking on what makes someone a good person, or more specifically, what makes someone worthy of being able to live, and ultimately be happy.

it's not like hornigold is some kind of arbiter or higher power with the ability to dictate ed's fate. no one sent hornigold to judge him. ed brought him here himself so they could talk it through and he could decide for himself what the answer is, whether he knows it or not. it's not about god or anything else like that choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. morals don't come into it. it's not about who deserves to live.

it's about who has the strength to try.

and for a show that deals with a cast whom the majority of are objectively bad people, that's such a fucking interesting and actually really enlightening position to take. if this was the kind of show that concerned itself too much with morals or trying to define objective goodness or badness, it'd get very stuck when trying to flesh out a fully realised development arc for its main characters, and they were very smart to not spend too much time trying to answer those questions. in fact, I'd argue that it actively rallies against the notion that only certain kinds of people are redeemable or deserve happiness.

both ed and stede have lived for most of their lives believing they are irredeemable, even that they deserve to die, but they both in turn later have to contend with the truth that they actually don't want to (stede first of all when he kills nigel, then later on faces the firing squad and literally breaks down at the sudden certainty of his death, and ed in the most recent episode). they want to live. they just have a hard time believing there's any reason why they should be able to. it's like they've been waiting for permission. but permission has nothing to do with it. no one's going to decide for you. there's no higher power that tells you an absolute "yes, you deserve another chance" or "no, you're beyond hope". you have to make that decision for yourself.

when stede is first faced with death, that's the first time we hear the question that now echoes across the entire series again and again.

"do you want to live?"

and stede is, in that moment, contending with the realisation, for the first time, that he might be a terrible person. and in that moment he doesn't know how to answer that question, because in that moment he realises he might not deserve to live. but oluwande is asking him, plain and simple, do you WANT to? and he says yes. despite everything, he wants to live. and so our story begins. a story not necessarily about redemption, but about rebirth. about choosing to live, even if you don't think you've earned the right.

and in the first three episodes of season 2, we see ed go through the same motions as he contends with everything he's done. like, hornigold is literally a manifestation of all the terrible things ed's done and the things he hates about himself! and he looked ed in the eye and told him "I don't dictate whether you get to live or die. you have to decide that for yourself. not based on what you think about yourself, or whatever you think you deserve to, but based on if you want to or not".

he's literally faced with the human embodiment of every evil, reprehensible thing he's done, and it tells him that it doesn't decide. that's not what this is about. they don't weigh up what ed's done, about where he crossed the line, about what he can and can't take back or undo, not even about what ed likes about himself, but very simply, what ed likes about living.

like, answering the question "at what point does someone become irredeemable" is an extremely difficult line to tread, and this show could have so easily slipped up whilst trying to answer that question, considering that the majority of its main cast are, yknow, thieves and murderers. ed more than any of them. and yet he's the romantic object of this season. and they make that work by not concerning themselves or anyone else with tricky moral lamentations about goodness or evil. what they ask instead is, "is any of that a reason to give up?"

dying is not a victory. dying is not even necessarily retribution. dying is the only reason things will never get better. even if you think trying to put things right and live a better life is impossible. and it might be impossible. but you will never know unless you try. you might fail but you have a 100% better chance of making things right and doing better if you choose to live than you would if you chose to die. and that's absolutely the journey ed's going on this season.

one thing in particular I'm so glad they've abandoned is that thread about ed not killing people. because it unnecessarily complicated the moral framework of the show and put a kind of expectation on ed's actions that were too hard to maintain with the direction they wanted to take his character this season. they knew it would only muddy the waters when it came to paving out his journey to something better, and I'm glad they took the time to establish that ultimately it was only something that mattered to him, not the narrative. to him it was like he could maintain some semblance of being a half decent person if he only ever killed one person. but now that's gone. he's broken the one rule he had for himself, the one thing holding him back from going off the deep end. and the question remains, can he still come back from this? can he still put things right and fight for a better life for himself? when quite literally all is lost, can you still find it again? and ultimately, the answer is going to be yes. no matter what he's done.

I don't know how much exactly if at all of this is in response to some pushback they got last season about how their main cast are, when all is said and done, pretty bad people, but either way they came out of the gate this season saying actually yeah, you're right. they are bad people. but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a chance at happiness. that's our thesis, actually. it fucking threads that needle and embroiders itself perfectly into the stede-centric narrative last season that told us reinvention was always possible and it was never too late to start afresh once you know what you want from life and it's fucking beautiful. I can't believe they took the moral ambiguity of its principle characters and turned it into the POINT. and I cannot stress this enough, it did this in THREE episodes. I love this show so so much we are so fucking back.

[astridthevalkyrie]

so idk how mha is gonna end but obviously the moral of the story we’re going for here is that everyone deserves to be saved and heroism is about saving people no matter what. that’s great! i’m guessing some or all of the league is going to survive and be put into some kind of rehabilitation center (toga and spinner seem the most likely to me for now but who knows). and i’m fine with that i like the overall message of it.

but how are they going to deal with the fallout from the league’s victims? i get the feeling that they’re not, or it’ll be a one-off like “some ppl were upset we didn’t jail or kill the villains but the heroes calmed them down” or something like that. i mean. whoever in the LOV it is would have to show remorse eventually, for one thing, for them to be any different than the corrupt hero system. but even then, all the families of whoever machia trampled on during the war arc, are they just gonna be cool with this? mind you I don’t think that anyone in the LOV should be killed or jailed rather than rehabilitated, but i wonder if the show is going to bring up that anyone who dabi or toga killed won’t get a second chance. they won’t get rehabilitated, they’re just gone. how are their families and friends going to deal with what society deems as an appropriate punishment for them?

i think this message also could’ve been conveyed better if we had more prominent “corrupt” heroes aside from endeavor and hawks. the top ten minus them and the irrelevant guy who retired after the war arc are all portrayed narratively as good people. iida’s brother is attacked by stain for no real reason at all aside from not being all might. all might’s heroism ends up being bad for society overall yeah, but so much of that is because of who toshinori is as a person rather than hero society (which does play a part but if toshinori just hadn’t pushed himself to be the best and number one savior for everyone there wasn’t necessarily any society forcing him to until after he’d already showed them he could do it).

PLUS the existence of afo offsets this message. everyone can be saved…..besides the real super evil people?? if, and I’m not saying they do, shigaraki and afo had the same kill count, is the lack of a sad childhood the only thing that makes afo beyond redemption? i mean he might not be gone gone if he’s still inside shigaraki’s mind or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that the heroes were trying to kill him too. narratively, why was all might in the right for killing him all those years ago when hawks was in the wrong for killing twice? because twice was kinder? because twice was neurodivergent??

mha also a little bit contradicts itself because. hero society is exposed post war arc. civilians have every right to be mad that their current number one is an abuser and that the heroes failed and couldn’t protect them. but theeeen, we have ochako’s speech in which she yells at scared civilians that “the heroes are the ones who are getting dirty!” which is like. yeah. they are. but during and post the war arc civilians also very much died. i feel for izuku but at first glance if someone promised you a safe haven from being attacked and then said oh never mind we’re actually going to bring the one guy shigaraki can absolutely track and hunt down here because he’s tired of fighting, getting upset with that is not totally unreasonable.

and I get that civilians are supposed to get mad at heroes for being corrupt, but not for failing, because heroes should never have been put up on such a high pedestal. they should be seen as humans who are as fallible as everyone else. that doesn’t change the fact the average innocent person would be rightfully scared, because it’s not just the heroes who are getting dirty. people are getting attacked. the heroes are not saving everyone. they shouldn’t have to and there’s no way they realistically can, but picking and choosing which aspects of hero society people are allowed to criticize feels…meh. if there’s gonna be fallout, fallout that endeavor and hawks if not the rest deserve, there should be proper fallout.

i don’t think the UA kids should be treated as full-fledged heroes because they’re not, but their age should not be the one thing that makes them better than the current heroes. they’re liable to the same mistakes and the same fallings. or they would be had they not all been portrayed from the beginning as one big happy hopeful crowd who just wanna save the day! there was opportunity to show who was in it for the right and wrong reasons and somehow ochako who has been so poorly written for several seasons actually had the most relevant arc (besides bakugo) about being in the hero business for the right reasons. ochako should have interned with hawks ochako should have interned with hawks ochako should have interned with there should’ve been more students in it for the glory, for the money, for the fame, but even monoma from class b and mineta are apparently true heroes! is being a high schooler all it takes??

anyway this is all jumbled and a mess but mha should’ve made hero society far more corrupt to justify its dismantling is my point. right now we’re getting a vibe of “the heroes are just as bad as the villains if they don’t save them too” and that’s just like. objectively not true. if hawks was supposed to be an assassin for hire for the hero commission, we should’ve seen him kill people aside from the guy who could’ve turned the tides of the war, at the very least actually kill best jeanist to finish his mission. if toga wanted to preach about how the heroes are just as bad because they killed jin, it falls flat when she’s on machia’s back stomping on people and then killing an old lady to talk to ochako. the heroes should try to save everyone including the villains because that’s what heroism is, but they are not equally as bad as the villains for trying to stop the villains.

the hero commission in general is just like afo, a vague villain we can blame so that we don’t have to blame the underlings. if people discriminate against animal quirks we should’ve seen it way earlier with shoji and tsu and tokoyami, maybe really expanded on it once mirko and hawks and even the dog cop were introduced. if sooo many heroes were in this for the wrong reasons, where are they? the current “failings” of the hero system are all might, endeavor, hawks, lady nagant and bakugo. everyone else is fine! there was a chance to show that someone like mount lady isn’t a real hero because she only cares about fame. there was a chance to show that aizawa is a good hero compared to others because he doesn’t try and seek glory. but these points are only halfway done and then kinda left there.

[jadewing-realms]

disclaimer: written pre-release

i've had this sitting in my drafts for a bit since i started playing BG3, I kept seeing a particular kind of post regarding Astarion and it really started to frustrate me soooooo. here's a vaguely coherent rant nobody asked for pff

As I got into the game, following Astarion's romance subplot, doing research on the game and characters thus far, I encountered the schism between those who love Astarion and by extension, characters like him, and those that consider said characters as little more than toxic creatures, narcissists best dealt with swiftly and harshly. The latter tends, in the posts I've found at least, to view the former as poor unfortunate souls with the dreaded "i can fix him" mentality.

Now, I'm not here to say either is entirely wrong. I think to take a side here is to do the exploration a disservice and to forget the depth of nuance in art and media interpretation.

And that's just it. Because at the end of the day, interpretation is one of the key elements involved in this discourse. In the case of Astarion, especially with the game having been in early access for so long and no complete, guaranteed details of his past or arc made public yet, with so much up in the air as the full release drops, there are worlds of interpretations that can be made regarding our infamous vampire rogue.

Is one of those interpretations that he's both emotional and literal vampire who's every action is a trap for the protagonist in order to use them, and that he's irredeemable? Yes. Is another that he's simply trying to survive in a situation he's never been in after spending two centuries living like an animal? Also yes.

The error here, I think, is to treat one interpretation like it's more "right" than another. Which is what I've seen a lot of online threads do... Insisting one perspective is superior to the other. Which is bad faith even on a good day when either perspective is based in concrete, unchangeable fact. Even moreso in this case, until there's complete canon material to bank on, and even then that will have so much variety to it since most of it will depend on the actions of the player. It's a choice-based game. There is so much space for varied experiences, and none of them will be "right" or "wrong."

I feel like in modern media discussion, when considering whether a character is actively harmful or just flawed, it can be easy to forget that some of our most popular stories are ones in which someone is deemed beyond hope or redemption, a danger to all they encountered, only for their arc to raise them from their Pit of Dickishness and set them on pedestals as some of the most memorable, inspiring characters we know.

The timeless story of the Christmas Carol gives us an absolutely despicable old geezer who literally spells out the horror he'd inflict upon the poor if he could, simply for the sin of poverty. But in an effort to fixate only on how problematic he (very much intentionally) is, we might lose sight of how the whole point of the story is to watch him be forced to confront his ways, unpack all his crap, and become better for it in the end.

Characters like Prince Zuko, Edmund Pevensie, Greedling, Steve Harrington, Boromir, James Ford, friggin Darth Vader, we wouldn't have any of them if we only read them at surface level as toxic assholes and then left it at that. But through learning the nuances of these characters and watching them confront their actions and consequences and learn from them, they not only grow and change into better people, but we love them because they hold pieces of ourselves in them, despite their sharp edges. We can understand why they are the way they are, and maybe, if we're honest with ourselves, we can acknowledge that we might have done similarly awful things under their circumstances. It makes them relatable, admirable, and cautionary all at once. It makes them human.

None of that is to say that there are never characters built purely and solely to fear and loath, not at all. True scumbags can and do exist, both in fiction and reality. To try to enforce the idea of finding empathy for a true monster is often a tactic used in reality to gaslight people into excusing said monsters' behavior.

Which leads into the "i can fix him" argument. When applied to situations dealing with real dangerous and horrid people who can't or won't change? Absolutely Not Great (though that's not to say it can't be included in a story, there are valuable themes in that on its own). Condoning this dynamic as something good is what leads to abusive relationships and innocent people staying in unhealthy situations for far too long. I'm among those who can attest to that personally.

That said, when it comes to Astarion, no one can rightly say going through his romance arc or not is condoning anything. Because it once more comes down almost entirely to perspective and interpretation, because he's a video game character comprised of pixels and a well-written script and there are limitless ways he can be interpreted and interacted with.

Like, personally, yes, there are some dynamics I'd feel uncomfy pairing him with, even with the empathy I feel for his character. Platonic or romantic, doesn't matter. Does that mean I'm going to apply my interpretation and personal boundaries to the next person playing the Astarion romance? No. That would be assuming I've somehow discovered the "correct" way to interpret the game, which I have not and can never do because RPGs like Baldur's Gate 3 are such personalized experiences. People are 100% free to play a fictional game however the hell they so please, because stories are not inherently 1-to-1 reflections of reality.

Especially when it comes to the narcissism accusation, it sparks an extra layer of discomfort for me when it seems like characters who act selfishly or spin lies get called "narcissistic" when that's kinda severely over-generalizing what narcissism actually is??

Narcissism is inherently selfish, but not all selfishness is narcissism. Gaslighting is built on lies, but not all lies are gaslighting. This separation was literally bugging me so much, I talked with my therapist about it last week. And she agreed.

Some folks seem to forget is actual NPD isn't just about selfishness and manipulating. It's fragile ego and delusions of grandeur and the mind games, dysregulating highs and humiliating lows that they will weave in a web around you so that you, as a victim, can never get your mental and emotional footing. Usually for the purposes of then swooping in to offer themselves as your only source of stability. The whole "rely on me because your judgment is clearly faulty and you need to be protected from yourself" shtick.

You know. Kinda like Cazador.

The way I see Astarion, by contrast, is that he has an honesty to him that lacks such delusions. As much as he desperately tries to maintain this veneer of poise and sass and devil-may-care out of self-preservation, it's paper thin and crumples under the barest pressure. Like, the equivalent of a thematic sneeze and down he goes. Then you see him as he is. Which is just... frightened. Sad. Kinda pathetic, really. And absolutely, positively lost. All things he knows, but he legit believes he will be killed if he lets any of it show.

Comparing that to, say, Wyll, who's blissfully ignorant bluster reminds me painfully of self-aggrandizing family members that I love but can't interact with honestly because of the forest of self-delusion around them... well, it's not much of a contest.

If somebody interprets Astarion as a slimy, manipulating power-monger and gets rid of him the first chance they have, that's their story to tell and power to them for it. But the same must be said for the opposite. I don't appreciate the thought that there's a whole sect of the BG3 fandom that probably genuinely considers me "less than" or "unhealthy" or "problematic" in some way for being among those who like this character or others like him and their potential thematically and narratively. But if my interpretation is that he’s a frightened man who just wants to feel safe and free, that is also its own story and it's mine to tell if I wish. And both can be good or even powerful stories!

Is all of this based on my own personal nuances, biases, and priorities? Absolutely. And that's kinda the whole point... There's not a wrong answer with this, really. I experience these games and these characters through a lens that is mine and mine only, and I give meaning to the worlds I enter based on what makes the story feel most interesting and satisfying for me. And at the end of the day, what else is art for but to help us explore ourselves and learn a little bit more about what it means to be human. In all its glory and ugliness.

And that's a wholly personal journey nobody deserves to have micromanaged or belittled. I'm certainly not gonna go around looking down on anyone for having a different reading than mine. You do you, boo. But let me do me too.

[buckera]

I think your takes about 9-1–1 have been very nuanced and speak to your love for the show so I while I might have some differences in opinion, I really look forward to your thoughts and thank you for sharing with us your joy and passion.

I have really grown to love all the characters and their stories throughout the years. I have no idea where the plot is going but I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing how much love people have for this show, the characters and the cast.

I know it can be really messy at times but I’m excited for where the show is going.

I was curious about your thoughts on how the show handles growth and flaws because I really like how complex each of the characters are and that’s one of the main selling points for me to continue watching so I would love to hear what you think :)

also if you have any recommendations for other shows to watch I would love to hear those as well :)

okay, first of all you are so so kind, it made my chin wobble a little bit 🥹

and I love your attitude, because yeah, we don't have to have the same opinions on anything, especially not in fandom, but you know, having fun and throwing stuff at the wall without trying to spit into each other's soup? that's what it's all about.

I'm gonna cut this in half because I went into ramble mode oops

when it comes to growth and being flawed. GOD YES. this is the reason I love this show, possibly more than I have ever loved any other.

for one, it doesn't tone it down, it doesn't leave a grey area of "was that really abuse?" "was that really neglect?" "was that invasive?" "was that really cheating?" because it was. the mistake and the flaw is always clear from the get go.

Hen cheating on Karen, Chimney lying to Tatiana, Maddie stalking that woman, Buck cheating on Taylor, Bobby being an addict, Athena killing people, Eddie enlisting, Shannon leaving to care for her mother, the Buckley parents lying to Buck and neglecting their children. all of that and more.

I was kind of surprised when I first started watching it that we had people cheating and leaving their children and killing people. that was just not the general vibe I was expecting after coming into it, thinking it'd be just some dramedy type firefighter procedural lmao

instead, I was hit with all the main characters lying, cheating, abusing their positions, being addicts and so on and then we got to see them for who they all were beyond that; heroes, people who risk their lives every day to help others.

the way the show portrays characters in such a human way, instead of saying "this character is bad" or "this character is good"; they are all just people trying their best and often times failing miserably.

I don't wanna make this too long, but the theme of cheating and parents abandoning their children (either physically or emotionally) is very rampant on the show — and so is forgivness. so far no character has cheated without being caught out for it and also being forgiven, and no parent has lost the right for redemption.

sure, I am less than pleased about Chim's dad and the Buckley parents... but if their kids are willing to let them be part of their lives and allow them room to grow and repent? then that's actually part of their growth as well.

Eddie and Shannon and Maddie, they have all left their kids out of fear of doing wrong by them or out of duty for another family member in Shannon's case; they all came back and worked hard every day to be the parents their kids deserved.

this is not something you see on other TV shows. if a parent leaves and comes back, there is a flare up of emotions and then a reconciliation in the same episode and then we move on, not to mention these are usually all adult children of the parents and there is no significant other in the picture complicating things further.

my point is; they are all so, so messy and flawed and they are all trying to do better (most of them anyway) and this is the human condition and it gets rough and ugly sometimes, but I think this show captures that better than any other, while also giving us the whole spectrum of emotions.

and while they all get a chance (or more) to better themselves and earn forgivness from the people they hurt; we see the hurt live on. Karen is still insecure about Hen cheating years ago, Bobby still struggles not to have a drink to this day, Eddie forgave Shannon the best he could but he never got closure and he never learned to trust that he's enough and Amir doesn't want revenge, but can't quite forgive Bobby either. the hurt never goes away no matter what and the work on themselves continues.

I could really go on forever, so I'm just gonna stop here lmao

on recommendations though; I don't watch too many new things cuz I either get sucked in or totally bored BUT following the theme of being flawed and growing, my absolute main recommendations would be Scrubs and Daredevil the netflix series (though mind you, neither of these have an active fandom atm)

and then if you like that sort of thing It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia; but that one is about flawed people who will never get better and are doomed to be trash and toxic and codependent for the rest of their lives — and it covers some real problematic topics, not always in the best way though (that being said, the actors/writers are pretty socially sensitive and everything problematic is in there because it is problematic)

thank you for this ask, it made my day, truly 💛✨

[antianakin]

Okay so I'm stepping out of my fandom lane a tad here because I just watched the season 2 finale of Leverage: Redemption and had some thoughts and feelings about Eliot Spencer as concerning the concept of "redemption" and whether you CAN be "redeemed" for certain things or not and how you can live your life if you can't.

Eliot in this latest episode says point blank that he cannot and will never be redeemed for some of the things he's done in his past. We as the audience have never really been told all of what he's done, we've been given bits and pieces every so often, just enough to perhaps lead us to our own conclusions of what he might have done, but it's never been spelled out. Which is fine, it actually increases the impact of what it is he may have done in his past if it's left in the shadows, just ambiguous enough for the audience to insert their own worst nightmares to fill in the blanks.

But what he also says is that he's made his peace with the fact that he'll never truly be redeemed for what he's done, he's okay with that. Because while he's alive, he can make himself useful to genuinely good people. He can help these other people who have also chosen to be better and have perhaps FOUND whatever redemption they may have needed at doing good for innocent victims in the world. He can take the skills he once only used to hurt people and instead use them to help people, to bring them peace and comfort and joy. He can DO GOOD THINGS, he can even do them for the rest of his life, but there's never going to be a count of people he's helped, lives he's saved, that will undo the hurt he's done or the lives he's TAKEN. Nothing will give those people back their lives, nothing will give their loved ones back that person they lost, he can't give back the time he stole from them.

Eliot can be loved, both by people who knew him before and people who know him after. Eliot can be a wonderful person that the audience roots for and adores. Eliot is not toxic or unreasonable or selfish in any of his relationships. But he can't be redeemed for what he's done, and THAT'S OKAY. Nothing about Eliot being a good person requires his redemption and I think that sometimes redemption gets confused with that. The person Eliot is saying all of this to in this particular episode tries to reassure him that of COURSE he's also been redeemed, but he's not saying he's not currently a good person who is doing good things. He's not saying that he isn't a better person than he was before or that the good choices he's making now don't matter. He's just recognizing that he's done enough evil in his life, enough objectively horrific things for objectively horrific and selfish people, that cannot be undone.

Most of the other characters in this show have been selfish, yes, have hurt people and done bad things, but as far as I remember none of them have KILLED anyone. And this show, via Eliot, places that as an ultimate evil beyond redemption. The other characters can find redemption by using their criminal skills to help the disenfranchised who are being abused and taken advantage of by the system. They could potentially even try to help some of the people they've hurt in the past, undo some of the damage they've done. Eliot can't. Which means there's no redemption to be found when there's not even any amends he can make for his choices in the past, there's no one left to make amends to.

And I LOVE Eliot, Eliot is brave and smart and funny and kind and great with kids and sensitive and loving. He's a brilliant cook who uses food to show people he loves them, he's an unparalleled fighter who refuses to use guns because of how lethal they are, he's an insanely observant person with a ridiculously good memory, he's stubborn and protective and understanding. Eliot is a wonderful person and a wonderful character.

And he CANNOT BE REDEEMED. There is NO redemption for Eliot Spencer because there are things he's done that cannot be undone, and THAT'S OKAY.

[bhuerracus]

My GW2 Main OC: Luphom

i realized i haven't posted my gw2 oc / toon yet. her name is Luphom! i was going to draw her for this post but drawing armor is so hard, but i promise ill give you a drawing later with a more accurate physical appearance. she's my main character and is a bit of a self-insert, not 100% of course but still be kind. i do have other OCs i am working on but they need more time in the oven.

also, i still have to complete the story, so all of this is before she becomes the Commander. i have to think if i want the GW2 story to be canon to her storyline. so far im thinking no, but we'll see. im kind of new to this sort of thing so im still getting used to fan fiction, OCs, RP etc. in general. so, if i am missing some CWs, tags, etc. please let me know!! i do not wish to make anyone see something they do not want to see.

with that out of the way click the "Read more" to learn more about her!

Content Warnings: tragic backstory (bullying, CPTSD (neglect and abuse), no specific details are given beyond what i just said), redemption.

name: Luphom

age: old

basic personality: the fun grandma who would give the grandkids cookies even when the parents beg for her not to do so. tries to be nice to everyone. angers and gets mean quickly when she feels wronged, but she's working on it. big "HIS PRONOUNS ARE THEY/THEM!!!!" energy, she does her best. will be the first to defend anyone she feels is being wronged, the first to notice when someone is trying to say something but can't get a word in, and interrupts everyone to let them speak.

physical appearance: a white and grey Charr. fat! has lots of tufts of fur on her face. fuzzy. totally covered in scars, some missing teeth.

gender: transgender woman, transitioned late into her life after repressing it for a very long time.

sexuality: says she's heterosexual, loves big strong men, but also, she is one big strong woman away from finding out she's bisexual.

basic backstory: after childhood neglect and abuse at the hands of her birth family, and then bullying in the fahrar, she found the one thing that gave her the positive attention and affection she craved and stopped the abuse: power.

she learned to be mean and brutal, and trained constantly so that no one would treat her poorly and give her respect. it worked. she was a force to be reckoned with.

however, as an adult, when this was no longer necessary and she could stop pretending to be a Cold and Cruel Badass, she realized the people she was surrounded with were all just as cruel as she was, but they weren't pretending.

she felt trapped, having to choose between being lonely, or being someone she was never meant to be. it took years, and as she slowly began to return to the kinder, softer person her childhood self was, the bullying began again, this time as an adult and from her friends and peers who looked down on her "new" "weakness". to them, she slowly became a completely different person. a spineless coward.

after self-reflection, a couple of hard choices, A Life-Changing Experience, and then finally the realization that she is a woman and always wanted to be but was never allowed to, she threw away her skills as a Warrior, her warband, and her past achievements on the battlefield to be happy and become her true self: a lady who loves to dress up, spoil loved ones, and get silly with it.

she is currently a Ranger who is looking to learn about all the animals that exist on Tyria.

likes: talking and chatting, puzzles, cooking, Snargle Goldclaw books, animals (especially ones she feels are mistreated like bugs), changing outfits weekly, bird-watching, giving affection, spoiling people silly, flirting (but will explode if you flirt back), art, being kind to those she sees no one else is kind to

dislikes: being ignored and ignoring others, reading, bigotry of any kind, arguing, the constant nightmares which haunt her every waking moment, boiled vegetables

[aleksanderscult]

So far, I’ve asked these questions to a couple of other creators whose takes on the Darkling I admire. One responded by saying they don’t think about characters in terms of ideal romantic matches but rather as tools serving the story’s themes. They believe the “perfect” partner for the Darkling depends on the narrative, with Alina working well as his foil in the current story.

That said, I’d love to hear your perspective, since I really enjoy your insights on him.

1. How would you envision the ideal love interest for the Darkling/Aleksander/Kirigan (excluding Alina, Zoya in the show, and any existing female characters)?Like what specific traits, both physical and personality-wise, would capture Aleksander’s deep interest?

2. Do you think this character would need to be Grisha, a specific type of Grisha even or could they be Otkazat’sya?

3. Beyond power, what qualities would truly attract Aleksander to someone?

4. Would this person challenge his darker tendencies, or would they complement them? Or maybe be in the middle of?

5. How might this relationship impact his character arc? Would it push him toward redemption, further darkness, or something more complex?

6. Could a relationship like this change the dynamics of his leadership and his goals for Ravka?

Thank you !

Hmm... Let's see...

1) About the physical part, I don't believe Aleksander has a specific type about this. But what I think captures his attention is intelligence and bravery. People that have brains.

(Having some cool powers wouldn't hurt too)

I have also talked about what, in my opinion, his ideal partner would be here

2) Ideally, he wants a partner that will stay with him forever so yeah a Grisha one. And a powerful one too (since only the powerful and rare ones live very long lives).

3) You know the interesting thing here is that there is a difference between what we want and what we need.

Aleksander wants a soldier at his side, someone he could rule together and live together, someone that is politically savy, determined and mature.

But what he needs is someone that will remind him what it's like to be human again. To be tolerant, to be reminded of the cost of human life, to feel what it's like to really live. And a person that would remind those things to him would attract him. He would be terrified at the beginning because he kept his humanity buried for so long but if he has feelings for that person then there is hope for him to open up little by little but never entirely.

4) Ideally, that person would complement his own but he needs someone that will lessen his darkness with her own light but never completely put it out. Because a ruler needs to be strict and harsh. But he also needs to be kind and understanding. A balance between those two, that's what he needs.

5 & 6) Not redemption, no. The Darkling would never regret what he did. But just like I said before, maybe become more mindful about what his actions bring to the lives of others (both to the otkazat'sya and the Grisha). To remember that kindness is a strength not a weakness. But that can take years. He has spent so long becoming like this that breaking such patterns is very hard.

[chutkiandchotte]

Khushi, Family, and Unconditional Love

This post happened because I started thinking about how, for Khushi, having the Raizadas as her in-laws is such a critical part of her personal happy ending and the healing-from-her-trauma journey. 

Certainly, in my opinion, they represent a MUCH happier family unit for her than the Guptas. Now listen, this isn’t a Guptas-bashing post (though I can definitely whip one of those out, some other day maybe). But if we’re talking about Khushi’s trauma and her ultimate happy ending, we have to talk about how the Guptas treated Khushi, and that brings out some harsh truths!

Little Orphan Khushi

Note: I’ll exclude Shashi from this analysis for the time being because he truly accepted Khushi as a daughter, loved and took care of her to the best of his ability, and nearly giving his life to protect her. 

But Buaji and Garima, are NOT the same as Shashi. It’s absolutely undeniable that underneath the surface of their love and care for Khushi is an undercurrent of neglect, contempt, and discrimination. Khushi IS family, but she ISN’T the same as Payal. Payal is truly beloved, for herself. She is considered an ideal child, full of virtues. Khushi? Khushi is loved as a duty, taken care of as the orphan burden. And this sentiment isn’t buried too deep - its a little too close to the surface, awaiting only a little anger, to burst out. 

Khushi is a PROBLEM, to be managed, to be controlled, the best they can. Payal is nurtured and a little spoiled, to be protected from the worst of the what the world has to offer, whereas Khushi takes on burdens entirely to large for her age for the sake of her family, and it’s all taken for granted. She is given way too much responsibility, she is the one making sacrifices to protect THEM and it is all subtly accepted and normalized. 

Why was Payal, the unmarried elder one, not linked with Shyam, if he was so eligible? Because for all his charms, he was ALSO the orphaned connection-less paying guest whose background no one knows much about. If it was Payal who went to work at the Raizadas the second time, would Buaji even CONSIDER letting her go? Would Buaji let Payal keep a secret about her stalker/sexual harasser, forcing her to hang around this same man all the time, for the sake of protecting Khushi’s future? 

See, they aren’t fairy tale evil step mothers. So it’s not that they don’t care for Khushi at all. They do care! They just don’t care AS MUCH as they do for Payal. The care for Khushi isn’t instinctive and emotional the way it is for Payal, the care comes from a sense of duty towards a child under their responsibility. And Khushi knows it. She feels it ALL. Will she ever admit this to anybody? Nope! But she knows. 

What Do We Do With The Problem of Khushi?

So, if they’re not evil and beyond redemption, then why are the Guptas like this? It’s not that they’re looking for reasons to hate Khushi, in fact, they observably do have a certain amount of affection and care for her. But, I believe, there’s a filter that distorts how they view her and how they love her that limits them. That is the filter of “she is an orphan we adopted who is draining our common financial resources and adding to our net worries by her very existence”. 

For middle class people, the financial burden of an extra child is nothing to be sneezed at, ESPECIALLY when it’s an additional girl child. The context of conservative, middle-class, small-town India is ever present in every scene with the Guptas. Again I repeat, there are no villains here (except Shyam) nor are you supposed to hate Buaji or Garima. It’s just that, to understand these delicately imbalanced family dynamics, you have to consider the society that they live in. A girl child represents a net financial drain. And that can’t be waved away no matter how evolved you are. The BEST case scenario is a man like Shashi, kind, generous, liberal-hearted, fair-minded, and loving, who would take Khushi in and NEVER blame her for any of this. But he can, and he very much does, worry about how to give his daughters the protection and the happiness they deserve considering his limitations. He worries. And the stress of it all takes an undeniable medical toll on him. He can never resent Khushi because he knows it’s not her fault. But he is absolutely worrying extra because of the fact that it’s two daughters, not one. 

By the way, this kind of bias is incredibly common (and extremely depressing). You’ll see a step child kind of attitude towards many girl children, even those who are fully blood related, in certain sections of society in India. Where will the dowry come from? Who will pay? What is the worth of a girl child when all she will do is take away a chunk of her family’s wealth with her? The indictment here is largely for the social structures that perpetuate this kind of terrible injustice, generation after generation. The best meaning individuals can be at wits end as to how they can take care of their families in such circumstances. 

THIS is also the crux of why Khushi really feels that burden of unlimited gratitude towards her parents, this is why I believe she is so extra EXTRA motivated to be the breadwinner, protect her family from financial woes, to prevent her father ANY amount of extra worry especially any on her account. As a girl child, Khushi wants to prove to them they haven’t made a “bad deal” by taking her in. She wants to show them the rich dividends of doing this great favor of loving her. (Let’s all take a minute to hug Khushi) (Arnav thinks this way too!!! Exactly this, just that being a man his motivation is more aspirational and less emotionally and logistically complicated).

The other aspect of this, is that in desi cultures, girl children are also considered a greater as well as trickier moral and social responsibility. The “honor” of women is fragile and must be protected blah blah blah and other nonsense. So any bad behavior on the part of Khushi is seen as particularly ungrateful in a way Payal’s would never be. Why? Because Khushi was rescued by them from the horror of being a girl alone in the world, given a home and protection and respectability, and in turn, she owes them a lifetime of being EXTRA careful, EXTRA perfect, so as to not add to their stress of raising girl children.

So, viewing Khushi through this girl child orphan/burden filter, they can never quite appreciate her for what she is, never quite let themselves love her for her own self, completely. They see her exuberance, her mischief, and worry about it causing logistical problems for them. They see her charming yet innocent nature, and worry about her getting intro disrespectable situations which would reflect badly on them and Payal. They see her “sanka-devi ness” ie her weirdness and penchant for trouble, her headstrong and stubborn nature, and worry about how that makes her bad marriage material, on top of already being an orphan. And you know what? They’re not entirely wrong; some of these qualities Khushi has, are NOT what people look for in an ideal Indian woman in the marriage market. But as her family, the Guptas should help her make the best of these circumstances and support her in her journey, rather than making her feel less than, and problematic, just for being her natural self. But, those are their limitations! From their perspective, they definitely think they did the best they could do, and they for sure did much more than what most others would have done. 

This is a bit of a head-canon, not entirely show-based, but it’s one I like: I think that it’s only when the Guptas see Khushi through other people’s eyes, specifically the Raizadas’ eyes, that they learn to fully appreciate her strengths. And it’s when she’s actually gone from the house, that they start to realize how much joy and emotional strength she lent to their household. 

Khushi’s Deepest, Unspoken Desires

So how does all this shape our little orphan Khushi, naturally affectionate and giving, sensitive and self-esteemed, determined and naive and idealistic and passionate all at once? She LOVES the Guptas, she would lay her life down for them, she can’t hear a word against them or question them even in her own thoughts. She can never consciously acknowledge any flaws in her adoptive family or their upbringing of her. But nevertheless, their attitude towards her DOES influence her subconscious desires and deepest ambitions. She sublimates her unmet family needs into her marriage dreams. She is seeking resolution for the trauma of her broken family and life as a burdensome adopted child, from her idealistic and actually quite unrealistic dreams of her perfect future husband and in-laws. 

The one thing that Khushi craves for, that she secretly, and desperately hopes for, is unconditional love and acceptance. She longs to be in a family unit where despite having no blood relation, she has full rights to her proper position, a claim to every material and emotional consideration, and no one can question it or take it away for any reason and she needn’t feel obliged to anybody for what she gets. It all - the love, the care, the money, the house, is unquestionably hers. In short, the type of acceptance and position you can get from being a beloved and respected wife and daughter in law.

Also, she wants a husband and in-laws who love her for what she is and just as she is with no asterisk or element of duty. She wants that unconditional love, with full freedom to be herself, to express her full range of Khushi behaviors. She’s seen how all her life, her mother and aunt have struggled to accept the extremities of her sanka-devi-ness. Considered it a problem. Even Shashi, though he accepted and encouraged her, didn’t represented a source of full comfort and support for her simply because Khushi herself never wants to worry or trouble him, she is so scared to disappoint him or bother him too much. She craves to be around people who she doesn’t have to work quite so hard to impress by suppressing her natural self and being what they want her to be; people who spontaneously enjoy her natural dorky, energetic, impulsive self; people who don’t need anything from her but just want her around, for herself. It’s her ultimate dream because Khushi is a loving, selfless soul deprived of a healthy family unit. She craves the same kind of love that she gives out.

Khushi’s Khushi: A Realistic Fulfillment of Unrealistic Dreams

Now, as I said, Khushi puts a lot of onus on her future marriage to help her achieve her deepest desires. I think that’s what marriage, the divine, lofty ideal of it that she cherishes in her heart, means to her. Of course, this 18 yr old girl’s dream of achieving all of the above through marriage is just that - a quite silly, though poignant dream. It’s not realistic. An average marriage does not encompass most of what Khushi wants from it. An average conservative desi marriage, even less so. But never fear. Devi Maiyya, and ASR, are here - to both teach Khushi a few lessons in the realm of reality, and then also to eventually give her the much more realistic, tempered, mature version of her cherished dream. 

To clarify - I don’t think Khushi having these dreams is silly or stupid. Khushi is valid, all right??? She’s got every right to seek the kind of love and acceptance via romantic and “found family” structures which she never got in her adopted family. What I am saying is, her dreams are immature, the way teenagers’ dreams often are - they aren’t based in reality and aren’t reasonably achievable. That doesn’t mean you have to give up on the dream, it just means that with life experience and learnings, you learn to tailor and temper your dream to a more nuanced, realistic version, that encompasses life’s complexities. Like Khushi does!

This is one of the reasons, despite all surface evidence to the contrary, Arnav IS the perfectly imperfect man for Khushi, the balm for all her wounds, the answer to all her duas (wishes/dreams). Arnav’s unique and loving family is an important part of what he offers Khushi, just like Khushi’s easy and effortlessly loving relationship with his family is an important part of what Khushi offers him. These are the building blocks of their long-term suitability for one another as life partners.

Why The Raizadas Matter, And Not Just As Arnav’s Family

The great thing about the Raizadas is, they aren’t just “Arnav’s family who like and accept Khushi”. The Raizadas are, in a sense, like Khushi’s own found family. She has relationships and attachments with them independent of Arnav. They actually gave her what she wanted, that is, a family that loves her for all of who she is, who never viewed her as a burden, who truly want her around with no qualifications to change who she is. 

They just are always so tickled by ALL of Khushi’s drama and silliness and pranks; and yet appreciate how responsible and wise she is for her age. And even when she messes up or crosses a line (mostly Arnav-related lol) they rarely take offence, even though they would actually have the right to on several occasions! They ENJOY having her around, they seek out her company, find her jokes funny, ask her for ideas, want her opinions, respect her capabilities. They appreciate all her strengths - her bravery, her intelligence, her creativity, her sense of humor, her people-savvy skills, the way she mingles with everybody, the way she can find solutions to every problem. They’re all a little bit in awe of her, I think, the same way they are in awe of Arnav. As they should be!!! Arnav and Khushi are truly THAT power couple, equally matched in their intelligence, beauty, and bravery (and also in their irritating stubborness lol) . And the Raizadas see that.

[ Also like, just, shoutout to the Raizadas for actually being a surprisingly chill, mild, and reasonable family in the landscape of Indian television populated with EXTREMELY dramatic, viciously misogynistic, and needlessly hostile family units. (Seriously those of you who do not have this context, believe me, compared to your Average Tellywood Family, the Raizadas are practically angelic, all right?) ]

It’s absolutely funny to me how much the Raizadas enjoy seeing Khushi dominate Arnav. Like, let me tell you, if this was Your Average Tellywood Show, they would all HATE Khushi from witnessing her resignation speech for humiliating their darling male son heir child. Instead, they are hilariously amused and kind of in awe and low-key cheering her on whenever they see her taking on ASR. 

And, psycho Indian to-be in-laws would be all set to blame Khushi for the Arnav-Lavanya break up. Instead, they are SO partial to Khushi the whole time she works there, to the point that it actually makes Lavanya feel really bad that she’s working so hard to fit in and not fully succeeding while Khushi is doing it effortlessly. It’s not even about the sanskaar (cultural knowledge which Khushi has) or any of that - its just about the natural chemistry that Khushi has with the Raizadas, it’s much stronger and flows easier than with any other potential bahus, including La and Payal. Like, they’re all friends, and they get along, and its all fun and chill!

And by Tellywood rules, after the elopement, they should be cursing her as a characterless woman. And after the Shyam thing (during the Didi ki saut track) -  don’t even get me started, we got mad at what we got but it could have been MUCH MUCH WORSE you guys. 

Nevertheless, we can’t let them off the hook completely, just because they aren’t as evil as their counterparts in some other stories! The Raizadas were definitely being unfair to Khushi, with a typical patriarchal bent, in their in their judgements and scoldings and expectations during these high crisis periods. Their reactions were understandable to a certain point (speaking about just general disappointment) as they still didn’t have the complete picture at that point. But blaming a woman and letting a man off the hook for the same mistake? Not even considering the power imbalance at play that might have influenced circumstances? Not okay! 

In their favor, even when they are in the throes of confusion and understandable disappointment at Khushi, they treat her with reasonable ire. I mean, there’s no dramatic hair pulling or excessive name calling or physical violence (except for Mami’s cruel taunts, but she’s been consistent with those from day 1). Just quiet and cold disappointment, which of course, is bad enough, but it’s realistic, it’s not overdramatic. And again - in their defence - they don’t know the extent of her suffering - she never tells them the whole truth. They think these are her decisions, and they are as disappointed as they would be in a friend they trusted, who let them down. And while they may be disappointed, and they may hold back in expressing their affections, it’s clear that the inner love for her never wavers, they never cross over into hating or abusing her. Even when Anjali is at her most Shyam-manipulated distorted perspective stage, she never hates Khushi or wishes her ill; her inappropriate or misplaced reactions/emotions are mostly focused on herself, her relationship with Arnav, and the loss of her husband. 

A great example of the Raizadas natural affection for Khushi is in the contract marriage period, especially Holi. They are quite easily won over with Khushi’s efforts to woo them and the madcap antics on Holi. You know why? Because they just LIKE her too much to stay mad at her! And it’s hard to stay mad all the time at somebody you inherently like and want to hang out with and make plans with lol. Once they forgive her, they let go of all the resentments. They accept her whole heartedly. They support her in all of her craziness and outlandish ideas, her wishes and ambitions like her dabba service, her home tuitions, even in her irritating Arnav shenanigans! Not quite understanding what’s wrong with contract marriage era Arnav and Khushi, they even clumsily try to play matchmaker, and marriage counsellor, trying to bring them closer to each other. Crucially, it’s not just Arnav they worry about - they genuinely and earnestly worry about Khushi and her happiness, her safety, too. 

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Khushi was adored by Nani, befriended by Anjali and later NK, and liked/respected by the likes of Akash LONG before there was any idea of “arshi” in any of their heads. In fact, Khushi was Arnav’s enemy. They actively FOUGHT Arnav to keep Khushi in their lives, to keep hanging out with her. She was on “their team” first lol. In terms of interests, hobbies, and likes, she has so much more in common with Raizadas, than with Arnav, who is a bit of an odd fish in his family. So, they like her as herself, first, and then think of her as “Arnav’s wife” whom they would be obliged to like and politely get along with no matter who she ended up being.

That natural and unconditional affection that she has from her in-laws, is a HUGE dream come true for Khushi. Seeing the kind of acceptance she gets from them, I think, heals an essentially broken part of herself and allows her to come into her fullest potential. 

I THINK that’s what they were going for with the Miss India track, from the family angle - to show a full circle for Khushi’s character, to show her standing strong and independent after achieving her dreams, backed by the support of a truly loving and accepting family who are extremely proud of her, with the unwavering love of her Arnavji who is always there to catch her when she stumbles. No denying, they FAILED (big time) in the specifics of achieving this intention because of the terrible execution of the last couple of tracks in IPK. 

But if I consider the overall picture, the complete end-to-end journey of Khushi in the TV show as a whole, then I can definitely see how the character arc of a outwardly happy, inwardly traumatized little orphan seeking true unconditional love and acceptance, not just from a man, but from a family, was beautifully fulfilled.

[invested-in-your-future]

Can you share your thoughts on Mercury Black and why you think he was mishandled

Honestly I think the entire original villain trio suffered heavily from addition of, like, ten different kind of pointless council of evil Salem flunkies, some of them overlapping "purpose" with Cinder's group.

Redemption or Villainy, they get to do neither of these character arcs.

The issue lies in multiple aspects of how the story is built:

It feels like MilesWBY people genuinely have no idea what they want to do with them beyond, for some awkward reason, trying to turn Cinder into Azula (but instead unwittingly turning her into a Team Rocket member). In MilesWBY writers' minds Cinder, Mercury and Emerald are "package deal".

They don't want to "overshadow" the "new guys" in Salem's Evil Council of Evil, but at the same time they NEED Cinder's group front and center because that's where majority of actual "stakes" for Team RWBY lie. Thus instead nobody gets proper development (seriously, who even cares about Hazel at this point or whatever his weird nonsensical motivations are?).

I am beginning to suspect writers might not quite get the "whole morality thing" and instead are treating it as a game between two , almost biblical, teams. You are either against Salem and thus "good" or you are "morally compromised" and thus are insta-aligned with Salem. They are clearly not interested in the idea of "good" people furthering Salem(or "bad" people working against her for that matter) nor are they interested in the idea of there being more than "two teams, one good, one evil" (case in point the absolute narrative pointlessness of Lionheart or how abrupt and weird the flip to evil was for Ironwood the moment he was on the opposite side of the "heroes that want to stop Salem"). It's why most Salem's flunkies( yes even Cinder's, whose whole character motivation got resolved within that needless flashback and it seems like she joined Salem "just because evil") motivations of working with her don't hold up under scrutiny even for a second within the idea of what Salem is said to want to do in the show. Evil is Salem and thus being Evil makes you on her side. And once you erase the concept of morality, you erase everything that's interesting about those three characters. What's interesting about them? The fact that they are not Salem and have been set up and implied to have their own goals and thoughts and reasons to do this.

The showrunners have a tendency to believe that the actual interesting things that people MIGHT want to see are actually boring and can be done offscreen. Who cares about actually showing Emerald's struggle or adding actual depth and complexity to either of the three? Who cares about doing anything when you can just say it happened already?

Really, I don't think Emerald or Mercury are the situation where one was done worse than the other. Narrative screwed over both, just in different ways. Emerald lost any semblance of interesting arc about her doubts and allegiance (and consequences for her actions whatever they may be) and Mercury had no chance to have any sort of depth or complexity.

Remember when people were theorizing on why Cinder might be doing this or the dynamics within the team? Remember when people were excited at how freaked Emerald looked during Fall of Beacon and were wondering where that will lead? Remember when "Just what did Cinder show to convince Emerald" was a mystery? Remember about all the ideas people had about Mercury's original flashback in V3? Or the weird backstab-y dynamic between the three and where that could lead? Penny situation and Ruby's trauma and the role Emerald played in that? Yang's situation and the implications of what happened in that fight with Mercury? In the eyes of the show all those things ended up being "irrelevant".

Sadly, at this point of MilesWBY, where everything is about gods, talking animals and other nonsense, Cinder's group is kind of pointless. Just another missed opportunity.

[esther-dot]

I'm the 2011/2013 Tumblr anon, and this is kind of embarrassing to admit but I'm also the original Dune anon, if that gives you any idea of my fandom background. (*/ω＼*) I've been in fandom since I was probably eleven or twelve, so fandom is basically home to me lol. I was always more of a sci-fi fan than a fantasy fan growing up, and so it wasn't until GOT I heard of the books; I'd never been a fan of the show, and I was impartial at best to the books. (At school, I knew classmates were reading them--- but for full context, I was a nerd disliked by other nerds for being too weird, so I wanted nothing to do with Tolkien/GRRM lol). I still have a bone to pick with GRRM (and this is partly what limits my participation) and in the case of my regular fandom, I'm very much used to isolation lol. (It's alt-right trolls who have a problem with me... sigh. Imagine a ship like Jonsa which redeems the books' thematic ideas and that's my situation).

I actually was familiar with the Sansa/Sandor ship long before I was interested in either media, because of the shipping circles I run in. Going from that lack of context to the context revealed in the actual books was very weird, because they seem like extremely disparate concepts. If you take Sansa/Sandor scenes and rearrange things, including the numbers in Sansa's age, it does feel like a powerfully violent BatB rendering with a dash of medieval pseudorealism; he's no prince and the romance is impossible, but perhaps he could be her knight or guardian in an unconsummated chaste romance or secret affair etc. It made me really rethink some of the ships I was interested in, and why, and where my tastes diverged from people I usually trusted. I am much less interested in ship archetypes by themselves than how those are enshrined in the narrative/themes at stake. It's also just interesting to me that Jonsa is an arguably truer, redeeming rendering of BatB, or a revisitation of that theme--- which GRRM is interested in, Sansa/Sandor fans are correct about that, but I think it's foreshadowing a future arc for her. Surely all the BatB exploration is being set up for something big?

So how did I find Jonsa.... well, it was a consequence of reading the books lol, though I imagine many people would say the show was illuminating (which is no condemnation that antis think it is). My interest in the books was primarily piqued through the show's ending--- I came to things rather late, but I'm thankful for that, considering that it seems like some of the best fandom discourse has taken place since then. I was mostly interested in it for the purposes of comparison of adaptation, which I find very interesting, and because I find predicting endgames in general very fun albeit painful. I watch a lot of things just to see what my instinctual feeling is because I like practising my narrative divination. I like engaging with storytelling! But I do have a mechanical fascination with it as well. I think this motivated my sending an ask about Dune to both you and transdimensional-void, mostly because the thing that often leads me in the right direction is getting a 'feeling' for the tone of something--- sometimes even beyond pure narrative reasoning. Lol

You'd ordinarily think the show would be offputting to a Jonsa theory (and this is a major spanner in the works, although I do kind of only semi-ironically believe they paired Jon with D/aenerys because E/milia Clarke is shorter than Kit H/arrington, where S/ophie is too tall, which they couldn't have predicted before being informed about a potential Jonsa resolution--- when in doubt, assume stupidity) but Jonsa is also deliciously ironic and tragic even if redeemed through an actual marriage (and we have so many weddings, over and over, that a symbolic redemption of Rhaegar/Lyanna's wound is basically being begged for--- Lyanna is realised in many ways in the story, through both Arya and Sansa... but it makes sense they'd redeem two sides to Lyanna, the wild wolfgirl and the girl married to a dragon. The wound inflicted through Rhaegar's absconding with Lyanna has to be redeemed, whether that is positively or shirking the possibility of a Lyanna/Rhaegar union altogether, so the door is open for tragic Jonsa in my eyes. These types of narrative questions are what I look out for when predicting narrative resolutions and is what led to me to seriously consider Jonsa). I was meditating on this recently because people were asking whether Cat and Ned would approve, and the marriage is only possible because they're dead. A Jon/Sansa arrangement is only possible because they have lost the people they loved most, and perhaps--- like I've seen suggested!--- it might even drive Arya away. As a writer, that, to me, is how you make Ned and Catelyn's deaths in the story echo in a bittersweet way. It's good storytelling. It goes beyond 'and we re-enact the lessons of parents' which is the normal way you'd realise parental remembrance and legacy. And something tells me GRRM isn't interested in predictability. Unless you've read Gothic literature.

So, beyond Jonsa I'm very interested in the reasoning underpinning the show's derivations, and in my case I'm much more interested in Jonsa in the books than the show (that wasn't really what did it), though in the case of the show, I'm interested in where you can potentially see reflections of a book dynamic. But so much of the adaptation is muddied that it's hard to parse, and I'm really not sure how much of GRRM's suggestions they truly had versus what they stuck to. If they knew they needed 'a Jon romance', in the same way as they needed Robb to break his wedding pact with the Freys, but supplemented Talisa, what was motivating their decisionmaking? D/aenerys was the selling star of the show and basically the face of it, and the face of the merchandise and the cultural conversation etc. (which is why they made her death punishing--- the storytelling is so spiteful, and normally I'm a villain apologist through and through, but this case was particularly egregious) and it would seem silly not to give her a romance, because how can you write important female characters without romance? Now, I'm a perennial romance apologist, but the thinking here, to me, seems rather suspicious. So, I think what's special about ASOIAF right now is we've got a theoretical ending through the show, but where does that translate to the books? And where does the fandom get it wrong, and where do they get it right? The historic ubiquity of Sansa/Sandor, and many other fandom trends (e.g. D/aenerys is the rightful ruler, or tragic heroine, and so on) is kind of like honey to me, because all of those theories were completely blown out of the water by the show, but critically--- critically--- there's still room for expansion in the book for other directions. I was put off by simplistic interpretations of the books that floated around and when I read them the fandom characterisation, crossplatform, was actually shocking to me.

Since you asked--- and I'm terribly sorry--- I have a lot of feelings about when TWOW may or may not come out, not just because of anticipation, but because GRRM's authorial struggle is hard to watch through the eyes of fandom. The condemnation of his procrastination, his apparent carelessness--- that he 'took the money and ran'--- the hopelessness--- it's very hard to watch, and what I wonder is how he feels as a writer. Releasing TWOW will lead him into the final endgame, and he'll have to say goodbye to his magnum opus. That is very hard, beyond the show sailing ahead, and beyond anything else. It also gets to me in a personal way (which no one else can help!) because I am a writer trying to finish a long work, and I'm literally at the equivalent point GRRM is, and--- although he's a celebrated published author, and I'm writing for the sole joy of it--- I think that there is probably something fundamentally similar there, which is that holy fuck it's hard. It doesn't matter how much you know what you need to do, doing it is hard, and writing itself is actually an extremely difficult task. And by writing that means formulating ideas, as well as actual finger to DOS machine.

Writing sometimes is kind of like trying to paint a person, except you've never seen a human being before.

But I think that if GRRM is really committed to his bittersweet romanticism, he can pull off a goodbye, lol. And as much as I quibble with his narrative ethos and sometimes he makes me tear my hair out, I want to see him complete his work, because I think every single author deserves that. And because I think that at a minimum, for something like ASOIAF, the legacy of its ending ought to be his final say. I can't speak to his actual psyche but I do fully believe if he can publish TWOW, he can do ADOS. My observation is that TWOW is structurally much more difficult than ADOS, and I think that's one of many reasons he's been dragging his heels, long before the show caught up. Once he gets to the victory lap of ADOS, he will probably have both a professionally and emotionally easier time in terms of having to finish it. TWOW merges the split threads of AFFC and ADWD, whereas ADOS will only have to follow through (touch wood) on the one book, where many perspectives and their storylines will have converged--- at some point, we may have Sansa, Jon, and Brienne all unified! Which resolves character goals as well as being more economic with POV distribution. This is the angle I find very interesting because I think the way he uses character chapters to establish context and meaning beyond pure character is actually genius and rarely done so well in genre fiction, and I'm completely envious of it. (This is also why Jon/Sansa makes so much sense).

This is a terribly long ask so please don't feel the need to respond line by line, lol. I think I got a little excited! Having a positive fandom interaction is so nice. It's really weird that fandom has become such a polarised place (I mean, we had ship wars, but people kept to themselves more), and you're lucky Jonsa is your first fandom--- well, outside of the anti-Jonsas--- because I think it's a lovely place.

This goes for any Jonsa reading it: thank you all for literally keeping me sane. 🥰🥰🥰🥰 If I may ask, Esther, I think you've said that you came to Jonsa through the show then the books--- what drew you to Tumblr fandom? I'm always interested in how people find fandom!

Dune, anon! I'll tag @transdimensional-void because your convo about it did make me finally watch Dune (although I still don't think I'll read the book, sorry!), but the film was gorgeous. I didn't realize the director was Villeneuve. He always has very interesting projects and arresting visuals. Arrival was such a surprising take on an alien movie and it has really stayed with me. I think he has exquisite pacing, too.

Well now I’m even more concerned about the attempted doxing! Horrifying. The internet can be a wonderful thing, but I swear, it brings out the absolute worst in people.

I totally get what you mean about S*nsan seemingly being a BatB thing, but I’ve suggested before that it’s more in line with one of the old monster movies or even King Kong which love to pair something terrifying with a beautiful woman or little girl. It doesn’t mean romance, it’s the juxtaposition of extremes, raw power being stopped by beauty, violence being calmed by gentleness. There’s that line at the end of King Kong, “It was beauty killed the beast.” IMO, the beast and beauty idea is certainly there for the Hound and Sansa, I just don't think it's Disney's Beauty and the Beast. It's a highly romanticized idea, but not a romance in the way we use the term now.

My parents are both huge readers, not really into novels. My dad liked The Hobbit and LOTR tho, and got really into doing dramatic readings of those at bedtime for us kids. I remember The Hobbit the best because he’d make up tunes for all the songs and sing them. They’re very nostalgic for me, that love extends to the LOTR movies, but made it impossible for me to sit through the Hobbit adaptation. Anyway, I read a few sci fi and fantasy books, but I never really got into it. My little sister on the other hand luuuuurrrvs fantasy and she was the one who got me to watch GoT (I’d heard of the books, hadn’t read them) together, but then we ended up living in different states and she decided that it should be our thing to avoid spoilers and only watch the show when we got together. So, we were always running behind from that point on, but we made it through s5 that way. Eventually we just didn’t have the time to do that, and she was so disgusted with s5 she was happy to drop it completely--never watched another episode. I was too invested to stop, so I watched s6-7 myself and was simply appalled by the characterization of Jon. It made me get online for GoT content for the first time. This was in 2018. I saw that Martin gave interviews saying the show’s ending would be his ending, so I a) sped read the books, b) started listening to some of his interviews, c) saw the term “Jonsa” for the first time in the comments of one.

It took nothing to get me onboard because Jon and Sansa were my favorites, I really loved their scenes together, I hated everything after they separated in s7, and I read a lot of 19th century lit as a teenager, so cousin marriage didn't even strike me as weird in the historical context. I can't remember which meta it was I read first, one of Fedon's or blindestspot's prediction of a Jonsa reunion and marriage from 2013, but I got on tumblr and was totally sucked into the fandom.

“I do kind of only semi-ironically believe they paired Jon with D/aenerys because E/milia Clarke is shorter than Kit H/arrington, where S/ophie is too tall”  — I’m screaming. D&D @ Kit: "Sorry buddy, if you didn’t want your character to fall in love with a mass murdering tyrant you should have kept growing." lmaooooo.

“Jonsa is also deliciously ironic and tragic even if redeemed through an actual marriage (and we have so many weddings, over and over, that a symbolic redemption of Rhaegar/Lyanna's wound is basically being begged for--- Lyanna is realised in many ways in the story, through both Arya and Sansa... but it makes sense they'd redeem two sides to Lyanna, the wild wolfgirl and the girl married to a dragon. The wound inflicted through Rhaegar's absconding with Lyanna has to be redeemed, whether that is positively or shirking the possibility of a Lyanna/Rhaegar union altogether, so the door is open for tragic Jonsa in my eyes.” --You put this so beautifully. I wish you'd get a side blog and post that in the Jonsa tag, I love it!

One of the major puzzles to me is how the fandom all know just how much the text talks to itself, it's notably self-referential, so the way they dismiss the idea of Rhaegar's son and a Stark girl romance...I have a really hard time believing they don't see the logic there, how it would bring things full circle. The way they treat S*nsan as "practically canon" while calling Jonsa a crack ship when we have that hanging over our heads is a little incomprehensible.

“I was meditating on this recently because people were asking whether Cat and Ned would approve, and the marriage is only possible because they're dead. A Jon/Sansa arrangement is only possible because they have lost the people they loved most, and perhaps--- like I've seen suggested!--- it might even drive Arya away.” --I agree with this too. I am very struck by how NedCat, some of the best people and one of the best relationships Martin offers, has this pain and tragedy written into their love. That's a big reason why I can't quite get on board with an easy resolution to Jonsa, because Martin is just drawn to conflict which is why his characters and story is so compelling, but also makes me think, there will be layers to Jonsa, some real pain there.

“And something tells me GRRM isn't interested in predictability. Unless you've read Gothic literature.” — I once posted a list of gothic lit tropes and he’s included all of them. But Gothic heavily influenced horror, and ASOIAF has horror elements, so that isn't totally surprising when you think about it. It still amuses me though!

It’s definitely a real struggle to see the sense behind D&D’s choices but when I was reading an interview looking for a specific quote, I did see that even in 2011 Martin was saying he knew the endgames, which is a) comforting for Sansa ending up safely in Winterfell purposes, b) reassuring for Dark Dany believers, c) hilarious when you think about how many people are still pissed about Arya and Bran’s fates. And Jon? Well, I’ve made my peace with a tragic ending (although I’ve mocked it a great deal too because I can't see how it works), but we all know they fucked him over the most in s7-8, so I could also see D&D trashing what his ending was meant to be in favor of catering to Targ fans. Apparently Emilia has recently reiterated her frustration that Jon “got away” with killing Dany, so like…imagine the rage if he’d killed Dany and then got a HEA in Winterfell. 

My feeling is that Martin told them Jon would kill Dany and they chose to do "the romance" (which imo, they didn't like because the way they wrote and filmed it and permitted Kit to act it just...sabotaged it in every way imaginable) to make it more palatable to her fans who ate it up. They actually are comforted that Jon "loved" Dany and after s8 dropped pics/gifs of him cradling her dead body into our tag bragging that he loved her. Like, D&D made really crappy choices, but I think it was about manhandling their audience while hitting Martin's plot points they knew the Targ fans would hate, not a result of them throwing out the endgames.

“ The condemnation of his procrastination, his apparent carelessness--- that he 'took the money and ran' --I’m not a Martin defender, I have real reservations with some of his choices, but I have family his age and do try to think of him as a person. I find a lot of how people speak of him...well, I have no issue with people being frustrated we don't have TWOW considering how long ago he said he'd finish it (like, back in 2016) and how often since then he's indicated getting close to the end only for it to then sound like he's quite a ways away. As long as people don't harass him, I don't think it's an issue to talk about this in fandom spaces. However, they often sound ignorant of what it takes to write something like ASOIAF, with all the levels he's trying to work on. Also, his writing style sounds like a total nightmare? The idea of tearing things up to fix them seems hopeless to me, and he’s talked about doing this repeatedly—it would be so hard to finish a chapter or several and then realize, nope, gotta rework all of it.

“because I am a writer trying to finish a long work, and I'm literally at the equivalent point GRRM is, and--- although he's a celebrated published author, and I'm writing for the sole joy of it--- I think that there is probably something fundamentally similar there, which is that holy fuck it's hard.” --Oh ho ho! Well, you know that’s gonna make me have all sorts of questions, so if you want to tell me about your work (genre, tome or series, influences, themes etc) I am all ears, but I also know some writers have to keep all that to themselves until they’re done so I won’t pry. Although, because of our exchanges, I would be interested in how you use romance in your own writing.

“writing itself is actually an extremely difficult task” // “Writing sometimes is kind of like trying to paint a person, except you've never seen a human being before.” —dead! I think the issue is, many people don’t distinguish between types of writing? So someone doesn’t distinguish between the goal and what say, a modern romance is attempting to accomplish versus a Jane Austen novel. They might end the evaluation at "like or didn't" and not grasp what all goes into different types of novels, their individual successes or failures, and why some novelists can complete multiple novels in a year, another might spend a few years on one. I think about this a lot when I see people suggest Martin get some ghost writers, and like, this man isn’t churning out genre fiction (which I love, I was a snob as a teen and cured myself, but it is an entirely different kind of writing!), so it's just...a lot of fans totally misjudge the effort required and how easily replicated the work would be.

“I think that at a minimum, for something like ASOIAF, the legacy of its ending ought to be his final say” --I find it incredibly sad every year that goes by and the chance of him completing his series dwindles. People forget that what holds sway over a culture doesn’t always have staying power and a) I think his work is doomed to being forever misinterpreted unless he finishes and b) I don’t think he’ll have accomplished what he wanted to regarding elevating fantasy / getting it the respect he believes it deserves unless he gets to that ending. It's a shame.

I enjoyed reading all your thoughts on Jonsa, the ideas it touches on and how GoT/ASOIAF might differ. Thank you!

[jse-dnd-au]

The JSE D&D AU Pantheon

—

The Ever-Gazing One

Other names: The Ever-Gaze, The World's Visage

At the dawn of the ages over this realm, there was only The Ever-Gazing One. It was he who began the forward march of time, the outward flow of space, and the rise of life from the ground. The first races of this realm were naturally peace-loving– even those races with the innate forces of chaos and evil in their blood had their place, for everybody was seen as having value to the Ever-Gaze.

Over time, some began to question the Ever-Gazing One. They wondered how their creator could possibly understand the struggles of mortality from his pedestal in the beyond.

In response, the Ever-Gaze created five more deities to rule alongside himself– the Champion, the Magnificent, the Lifebringer, the Sharpshooter, and the Wayfarer– and imbued each one with the power of being able to walk among the mortals so that they, too, could understand their strife and be divine messengers.

However, this did not please everybody. Some of the folk who had originally questioned the Ever-Gazing One were not satisfied, and thus placed their faith elsewhere. Their collective will created That Which Observes, an opposite entity to the Ever-Gaze who promised them power in thanks for bringing it to life…

Cleric Divine Domains: Life, Light, Order Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of Devotion, Oath of Redemption, Oath of the Watchers Warlock pacts that would suit this deity: The Celestial

—

That Which Observes

Other names: The Corrupting Blade, The Master of Puppets

Those who had turned from the Ever-Gazing One placed their faith in a new deity of their own creation, which they called That Which Observes. They pictured this entity as an opposite to the Ever-Gaze; where the first had light, the other darkness– and where the first had weakness, the other, immense power. Followers of That Which Observes claim they have prophetic dreams that would seem like nightmares to common folk– but instead of fear, they embrace their own strength and the strength of their new god.

Interpretations of That Which Observes vary as widely as the power it is said to wield. As eras have passed, the tale of its creation has been morphed to fit various definitions; over time, this anti-deity has gone from being a fiend to a ghost to a mere feeling and back again. But one thing remains consistent in all the tales: That Which Observes is a master of the shortblade, it being a weapon of mass corruption able to strike down even the gods themselves…

Cleric Divine Domains: Death, Trickery Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: The Fiend, The Great Old One, The Hexblade, The Undead

—

The Champion

Other names: The Hero, The Mighty Fist of Justice

The Champion was the eldest of the five deities that the Ever-Gazing One manifested for his people. He was known to lean towards methods of chaos, but also goodness and light; he wouldn't stand for tyranny of any kind, and ventures created in his name were often emboldened by his blessing, so long as they met with his approval.

Soldiers would regularly invoke the Champion's name during times of war against dark forces, such as those who followed That Which Observes. In tales of ages past, he was known as the Ever-Gaze's right hand, and the one who would strike down the forces of darkness and injustice…

Cleric Divine Domains: Forge, Light, Tempest, War Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of Glory, Oath of the Watchers Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: None

—

The Magnificent

Other names: The Arcane Artist, The Phoenix

The second eldest of the Ever-Gaze's deity-creations, the Magnificent has long been known to be a patron of magic as well as the arts. In every interaction with the other gods, he left his mark with a certain flourish and grace, and in many depictions, he is shown as having a cape made of the entire night sky and dancing around all of existence in a single day. Because of this, the christening of many theatres, museums, and places of magical study begins with a ceremony in the name of the Magnificent.

Despite being overally benevolent, not all folk followed the Magnificent, or believed he had good intentions. These people claimed that those who followed this deity were often led astray into darkness, never to return– and this belief was not entirely unfounded. Many who invoked the Magnificent did so in the name of curiosity for the arcane, which often drew people to the shadows, and often into the sight of That Which Observes...

Cleric Divine Domains: Arcana, Twilight Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of the Ancients Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: The Archfey

—

The Lifebringer

Other names: The Giving Hand, The Judge

As neither the eldest nor the youngest of the Ever-Gaze's creations, the Lifebringer was often shown and spoken of as having a strange duality. For every person who believed him to be benevolent and merciful, there was another who saw him as ruthless and unforgiving. As a result of this, there are clerics of equal numbers on either side of this dichotomy– and the Lifebringer makes no claims to having one be truer than the other. Regardless, whether the mortals welcomed a new life into their world or lost a loved one, they would invoke the name of the Lifebringer, either to ensure a long and prosperous life or to pray that the afterlife would be welcoming to them.

Despite all of his spiritual implications, many artificers and apothecaries would call upon the Lifebringer to bless their latest studies or patients, for he was also a patron of creation and the sciences. As a result, several places of higher learning would hold special events in his name to ask for his blessing of the educational year.

Cleric Divine Domains: Light, Life, Grave Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of Redemption Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: None

—

The Sharpshooter

Other names: The Marksman, He Who Sees True

The second youngest of those the Ever-Gazing One created to rule alongside himself, the Sharpshooter was both the patron of familial ties and of bonds of friendship. As groups of adventurers would set out for the first time, many would pray to the Sharpshooter for his blessing over the party and their growth together. Beyond that, he was also the deity known to be a guardian of nature and patron of the hunt; whenever his faithful would successfully bring home their next meal, they gave thanks to the Sharpshooter for its life.

As this deity was naturally good-aligned, many would also invoke his name in a plea for luck and good fortune. Popular sayings for those who would do this would often bid the recipient "the true aim of the Sharpshooter", so that they might get the most favorable result.

Cleric Divine Domains: Life, Nature, Peace Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Redemption Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: None

—

The Wayfarer

Other names: The Traveler, The Hand of Fate

The Wayfarer was the youngest of the deities of the Ever-Gaze, but was still given a task that proved to be of great importance; he was to keep watch over time itself, and to make sure that everything which had a beginning also earned its rightful end. Matters of diplomacy often began with the invocation of the Wayfarer so that he might bless both parties with lasting peace.

His position over time itself left him with an overally neutral outlook; while he leaned more towards goodness in his actions, he understood that sometimes evil was necessary to bring it about. This caused a lot of people to question those of his faith of how they could be so certain of future events, and even led to some falsely claiming that they could call upon the Wayfarer's own power over fate in order to perform the impossible– but true clerics of the deity knew better than to meddle with things beyond their control; everything would sort itself out with time, after all.

Cleric Divine Domains: Knowledge, Order Paladin Oaths that would suit this deity: Oath of the Watchers Warlock Pacts that would suit this deity: None

—

[justanancientfangirl]

A bit of a rant: on Sylvie

Okay, look, as a preface: I do not hate Sylvie. I feel like I see a lot of hate for the character from a lot of people not Sylkie shippers, and I definitely do not hate her, even if the ship is something I struggle to see.

I actually like Sylvie's character a lot. She has had to struggle and fight and flee for something like a thousand years. I honestly don't begrudge her desire to stay in a quiet universe and just live a life. I want that for her, even.

Is she being a huge dick to Loki every time they interact this season? Yes. She refuses to listen to him (though he isn't being entirely straight with her either, to be fair), and she continually belittles his own choices and refuses to take responsibility for her own. She blames him and the TVA for the destruction of timelines, even though Dox's crew was, at the time, acting as a rogue element, and the issues that the timelines and TVA are currently facing are entirely her fault.

Again, I totally understand why she didn't listen to Loki at the end of season 1. It makes sense that she wouldn't want trust anything that He Who Remains had to say, and it makes sense that she wouldn't trust Loki at all. She barely knows him, and she's been alone her entire life. She doesn't really remember her life before the TVA ruined it. She has no friends, no allies. So yes, it was foolish of her to not stop and think for like ten seconds, but killing He Who Remains had been her ultimate goal for centuries. Of course she was going to do it.

HOWEVER. Because she killed He Who Remains, the multiverse is in danger. And just because I understand her inability to accept responsibility for her actions, does not mean I condone it. The lady is incredibly emotionally stunted. Of course she doesn't know how to take responsibility. She's been blaming other people for her problems her entire life (and most of that was 100% justified). To stop doing so now, when she hasn't had a chance to learn, would be bad writing.

I am all for a good character arc and a redemption story. Loki's himself has been...a little rushed. And they haven't touched on the trauma that was his time Before New York at all since that like, thirty seconds in season 1. Sure, he mentions NY a little flippantly here in season 2, but we all know that was just a way to get Mobius to talk. Point is, they have set Sylvie up for a good character arc, and kind of fast tracked Loki's without actually talking about some of the things I'm most interested in, but...eh, whatever. I can rant about that another time.

What I don't understand though, is Sylkie shippers. Like...number one, are we watching the same show? Season 1 seemed to have some unrequited pining going on, on Loki's side, especially before Loki and Mobius made up, but Sylvie has never shown any interest in Loki beyond that of a tentative ally. And really, there's no reason she should. When would Sylvie have had time, ever in her life, to think of romance beyond, possibly, an errant daydream? And this season, it really seems like she can hardly stand him.

Every time they interact, she lashes out, she tries to hurt him. She has told him, unequivocally, to leave her alone, multiple times. She listened to him say that he feared being alone most of all, and then she left him (I assume she has a tab at that bar, otherwise who the hell paid for those shots, and also, I've never met a bartender who would hear 'two bourbons' and just pour shots immediately, if it isn't a common order for that patron, but that's yet another rant for another day).

Like, she just seems to be going out of her way to be cruel, to drag him down, to blame him for everything, and to paint him as the bad guy. Sure, he wants to have his friends back, and maybe that IS selfish, but he ALSO wants to save the TVA because he believes that will save the multiverse, and that isn't, but she knows that once she pokes any holes in the story he's concocted for himself, he's only going to dwell on the bad side. Which he does. Her goal, I assume, is to get him out of her hair and leave her alone. She doesn't want to be involved with all this TVA stuff anymore. And...yeah, fair enough, except that the multiverse is actively disintegrating. Which is at least...oh, 45% her fault. (I'll grant that most of the fault lies on the heads of the old TVA, He Who Remains and Ravonna. And maybe like 3% Loki's fault. Everyone can take somewhat a share of the blame, but she really was trying to do the most. And she is the only one of our 'heroes' who hasn't taken any responsibility for the problems now facing the multiverse).

Look, I have shipped Loki with almost every single character he has had screen time with, if the story is well written enough for it to make sense. I've even read a Sylkie story that I actually managed to really get behind. (It took place before season 2, the premise being that in their fight at the Citadel, there was an accident and they ended up in Westview during the events of Wandavision, and were paired as a husband/wife duo for the show. It made sense, and there was enough of a build of their relationship that I was like...yeah, sure).

The writers of this show have NOT done their due diligence to make Sylkie make sense. In season 1, I could see that he might have a thing for her. But I never saw that being reciprocated.

Sylvie needs friends, she needs to learn how to trust, she needs stability, and she needs to figure out who she is as a person when she isn't on the run. She does NOT need a romance. A romance at this stage would be incredibly bad for her, really, if we give a shit about a fictional character's mental health.

I like Sylvie as a character. I think her arc has been interesting, but she is definitely still in the middle of it, and it is nowhere near resolved. I can't see a single instance in the show where she showed a romantic interest in Loki. (And...what, she kissed him? That was only to get him distracted enough to kick him out a time door so she could kill He Who Remains).

If this season ends with Sylkie endgame, I will have honestly lost faith in Marvel's ability to write a good story entirely. If they want the two of them to be together, they have to write them together. They have to actually be a team, not just constantly bickering (or in this season, Loki begging for her help and her telling him to stuff it). She only comes to help because her own universe gets shredded, not because she wanted to help Loki or save the other universes. She would not be good for him, at least not right now. That relationship would be hella toxic. Has she ever done anything for him? Just for him, not because he was useful to her in some way?

Look, TL;DR, I like Sylvie as a character and I want to see her grow and thrive, but Sylkie makes no sense and if they go that route this season it is bad writing. MCU has always been bad at romance and character development, but this would take the cake.

[thoughtfullyrainynightmare]

I know this is asking too much from a series like black clover but I've been rereading the missing children arc and man I really wish we'd gotten some more insight into Neige's psyche. Like... sure he's soft and sweet, but let's not forget he got angry and struck Marie in rage because she OPPOSED HIM. He thought friends were just supposed to blindly agree his every word and immediately resorted to violence when frustrated. Which... I mean okay, it makes sense given that his only friends seemed to be his snowmen and that he was apparently raised by his brother who was verbally, emotionally AND physically abusive. But still! I wish we'd gotten to see his evolution beyond just "oh I was wrong to do all that, I'm going to be good from now on."

And let's not forget that he killed his brother??? He clearly cared about him despite everything??? Why are we brushing over all this???

Logically I know not every side character can get developed but still. Frustrating.

Sorry for the rant, I just needed to get this out and since I always enjoy your insights and you recently talked about the snow baby I thought you'd be the best person to go to. Have a nice evening!

Flamelet I can feel your frustration, and I know (to an extent) how it feels when your blorbo doesn't get the character development, or doesn't get it in a satisfying manner.

Also, don't worry about the rant! I'm all for hearing thoughts and feelings for the show, and the characters, as long as it's, y'know, constructively formulated. Which this is.

And for what it's worth, I think that Neige's emotional growth is stunted to some extent. Like, a lot of the behaviours he displayed, made me think of the word "tantrum", so he has never probably been taught how to handle his own emotions. (Like with striking Marie when she didn't just go along with things. Reminds me of toddlers pushing each other on a sandbox.) It's something that can be observed in people well into their 40s too, but usually it's displayed in other ways. But it's still the temper-tantrum phenomenon.

I would imagine that living with Baro would have caused a severe enough of a trauma for Neige to stay in that mind-set and emotional/psychological state. Defence mechanisms of a kind to not explore those emotions and or handle them in any way, and acting out of impulse. But also it could be a behaviour pattern that Neige learned from Baro. So, if Neige didn't go along Baro's plan, then Baro hit him, or something along those lines. And yes, though Baro did a lot of horrid things to Neige, Neige cared for Baro. Probably out of a "conviction" of a kind to an extent (like "I need to care for him because he's my brother"), but also probably because Baro was the only person Neige had in his life. And without his brother, Neige would have been all alone. And being alone is scary.

A lot of these events were a lot for Neige too, I would imagine, which could have placed him in a kind of a shock, where Baro's death wouldn't have visibly shown in that moment either. Maybe a form of denial? (I'm not a psychologist, so I'm just guessing a lot here) Which is why Neige wasn't shown grieving.

But also the "okay, I will be good from now on" is an intention, which I think would go well with someone who isn't yet equipped to handle emotions, especially complex emotions, at least well. So, without really reflecting on what happened and why; how things ended up where they did, Neige just blatantly decides "I will be good". The emotional growth, and learning the tools to handle his emotions and live without the ""guidance"" of Baro, come later.

Though, granted, as you mentioned, that a lot of this is just due to not being able to focus on every side character. So, this theorization "goes too deep", because things just needed to be wrapped up quickly, and Neige was given a very, very rushed redemption arc.

I really don't know, I'm just making a lot of (more or less) educated speculations ^^'

Thank you for the ask!

[calypsolemon]

I'm not particularly of the mind that Jack Horner is some revolutionary character for being an irredeemable villain (honestly at the risk of sounding mean, I kind of think that if you believe there's too many "redemption arcs" and "sympathetic villains" in fiction you're either not understanding what those are or not engaging with enough media to make a proper judgement) but I don't really think the creators thought they were being unique with him either. Personally I think he works well in the film because the story is already an incredibly simple fable at its core.

Puss is not as selfish as Jack by any means, nor does he have the same desires on a surface level, but what they do share is a sense of entitlement. Puss desires well beyond what life has allotted him, despite the privilege he already was born with (8 extra lives). He spends this privilege frivolously in an attempt to maintain his ego, hurting people around him (especially those he is supposed to love) in the process. And when he realizes he has lost this advantage, his first reaction is to attempt to gain it all back, feeling as though without immortality, his life means nothing. Jack as a villain mirrors this but in a way that is literal enough that it is impossible to miss, for both humorous effect and as a way to better understand the reason why Puss not valuing his own life is a problem.

No real conclusion to this I'm just putting it out there because the way Jack Horner gets discussed as a villain kind of rubs me as not-quite-right to his actual purpose in the story.

[itsclydebitches]

I have two thoughts about your Alastor theory: First, I legitimately think that he's smiling as his own choice as a form of copium. Like in a "If I smile like I'm in control, I AM in control" kind of way. Just because "You're never fully dressed without a smile" being his favourite song, and telling Charlie to use her smile as an advantage over others, and praising her when she does. It's just such a big part of his characterisation that I think I'd be disappointed if it wasn't his choice, y'know? The green threads on his mouth are there to stop him from telling anyone about the deal imo.

Second: The exorcists legitimately do seem to be smiling like that, just because we see with Lute that the masks change and emote with the wearer (notably when the shield comes up and she and adam talk, you can see how emotive it is), so I reckon those lil freaks really are just grinning their heads off because they've been trained to enjoy what they're doing. However, I do agree that the mask seems to default to smile.

Thanks for the thoughts! Yeah, I can understand being disappointed, though I personally don't think it detracts from his characterization if it's not an active choice. As you say, "You're Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile" is his favorite song and I do think Alastor 100% believes the advice he gave Charlie. He's a character who others might want to take advantage of through his preferences ('You believe in smiling, Alastor? How about you do it all the time then...') and who is determined to turn every obstacle to his advantage ('Well, if I have to smile at least no one will know what I'm really thinking. Silver lining!') Usually any theories I have are just fun What Ifs, with only a tenuous belief that it could really become canon, but for this particular detail I'd be shocked if Alastor's smile isn't a permanent fixture somehow. Beyond the scene I mentioned where he really should be frowning if he was capable (and that would be a sucker-punch for the viewer too. How best to visually convey that he's freaking out than by having him NOT smile for the first time all season?), we have the fact that Alastor is seen making another active choice about his presentation: the radio voice. Yet he drops that a couple of different times, most notably when his staff breaks in the fight with Adam (and we know the voice isn't because of the staff because he goes back to normal a second later while the staff is still in pieces). So this is something Alastor controls himself and losing it for a second is GREAT because it conveys the seriousness of the situation. Alastor is so damn shocked he briefly drops his persona.

... except for the smile.

If he could stop smiling I'd expect this to be another moment where he does. Not for long because agreed, it's a huge part of his character, but we'd likely see him forcing a smile back as the radio voice comes back too. Instead, it's a fixture despite the surprise of the moment undermining everything else we know about Alastor's persona: he doesn't speak without his filter, he doesn't curse, he doesn't retreat. The smile is the only thing that doesn't waver in a moment that otherwise completely undermines him.

Also: "so I reckon those lil freaks really are just grinning their heads off because they've been trained to enjoy what they're doing" YEAH I think the default look of the masks might still be important but that doesn't erase the fact that they're clearly enjoying themselves. It makes me want to know more about Vaggie's time between falling and present day. It's sweet to have the insta-love moment as Charlie bandages her eye (and as a queer H/C lover that hit all the right buttons) BUT more realistically I'd expect it would take some time for her see Charlie and her people as worthwhile souls. Redemption is a journey and all that.